DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT SCIENCES (JSDS) Vol. 12 No. 1 ISSN 2221-1152 I Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) Editorial Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) is a scholarly journal that deals with the disciplines of social and development sciences. JSDS publishes research work that meaningfully contributes towards theoretical bases of contemporary developments in society, business and related disciplines. The work submitted for publication consideration in JSDS should address empirical and theoretical contributions in the subjects related to the scope of the journal in particular and allied theories and practices in general. Scope of JSDS includes: sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, international relations, linguistics, history, public relations, hospitality & tourism and project management. Author(s) should declare that work submitted to the journal is original, not under consideration for publication by another journal and that all listed authors approve its submission to JSDS. It is JSDS policy to welcome submissions for consideration, which are original, and not under consideration for publication by another journal at the same time. Author (s) can submit: Research Paper, Conceptual Paper, Case Studies and Book Review. The current issue of JSDS consists of papers of scholars from Ghana, Australia and USA. Effect of Interest Rate on Stock Prices, Unlocking the Challenging Pathways of Youth Participation in Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development, Pandemic Elections and the Covid-Safe Effect, Assessing the Effects of Regimented Administrative Structure of Education on Pupils Academic Performance and Populism: Utility of its Approaches and the Prospects of the Phenomenon's Resurgence are some of the major practices and concepts examined in these studies. Journal received research submission related to all aspects of major themes and tracks. All the submitted papers were first assessed, by the editorial team for relevance and originality of the work and blindly peer-reviewed by the external reviewers depending on the subject matter of the paper. After the rigorous peer-review process, the submitted papers were selected based on originality, significance, and clarity of the purpose. The current issue will therefore be a unique offer, where scholars will be able to appreciate the latest results in their field of expertise and to acquire additional knowledge in other relevant fields. Editor In Chief Prof Nek Kamal Yeop Yunus, PhD II Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) Editorial Board Nek Kamal Yeop Yunus, Ph. D, University Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia N. Panchanatham, Ph. D, Annamalai University, India R. K. Uppal, International University of Contemporary Studies, USA Ananda Wickramasinghe Ph. D, CQ University, Australia Hai-Chin YU, Ph. D, Chung Yuan University ,Chungli, Taiwan Yapa M W Y Bandara, Ph. D, Charles Sturt University, Australia Chux Gervase Iwu, Ph. D, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Pratibha Samson Gaikwad, Ph. D, Shivaji University of Pune, India M Azhar Khan, Ph. D, Hokkaido University, Japan Apostu Iulian, Ph. D, University of Bucharest, Romania Rajendra Parsad GUNPUTH, Ph. D., University of Mauritius, Mauritius III Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Pages Title I Editorial II Editorial Board III Table of Contents IV Papers V Effect of Interest Rate on Stock Prices in Ghana 1 Peter Arhenful, Augustine Kwadwo Yeboah, Kofi Sarfo Adjei Unlocking the Challenging Pathways of Youth Participation in Ghana’s Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency 8 Edward Brenya, Dominic Degraft Arthur, Janet Nyarko Pandemic Elections and the Covid-Safe Effect: Incumbents Re-elected in Six Covid-19 Safe Havens 17 John Paull Assessing the Effects of Regimented Administrative Structure of Education on Pupils Academic Performance of Basic Schools in Military Barracks, Ghana 25 Edward Brenya, Dominic Degraft Arthur, Raymond Opoku, Sylvester Atta Andam Populism: Utility of its Approaches and the Prospects of the Phenomenon's Resurgence in America 36 Daniel Abankwa IV Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) PAPERS V Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) Effect of Interest Rate on Stock Prices in Ghana Peter Arhenful1, Augustine Kwadwo Yeboah2 & Kofi Sarfo Adjei3 1&3Accounting and Finance Department, Accra Technical University, Accra, Ghana 2Department of Multidisciplinary Studies, Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: The paper assesses the effect of interest rate on stock prices, with emphases on Ghana Stock Exchange; using monthly time series data from July 2007 to December 2019. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test was employed to establish the stationarity properties of the data or otherwise. Using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimation technique of Multiple Regression, the results (β = – 0.891, p < 0.05) revealed an indirect association between interest rates and stock prices in the Ghanaian context; which is consistent with the theoretical conclusion that an increase in interest rate results in a decrease in stock prices. Thus, in the light of this finding, it was recommended that policymakers should consider the stock market dynamics due to the significant relationship that exists between the two macroeconomic variables. Keywords: Interest Rates, Stock Prices, Ordinary Least Squares, Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test, Ghana. 1. Introduction Interest rates and stock prices nexus has been the subject of several empirical and theoretical research works among academics, policymakers, economists and investment analysts in recent years. Economic theory postulates a negative correlation between these two macroeconomic variables (interest rates and stock prices); which implies that a rise in interest rate results in a fall in stock prices and vice versa. Higher interest rates as a contractionary monetary policy instrument, negatively affect stock prices owing to the fact that it brings about a fall in the value of stocks, making fixed-income assets more lucrative than keeping alternative stocks. This, therefore, reduces the likelihood for investors to take loans and invest in stocks and thereby decreasing demand for stocks (Teitey, 2019). In addition, a negative relationship has been hypothesized, in economic theory because interest rates affect the operations of business firms and companies. All other things being equal, a rise in interest rate brings about a rise in capital cost. As a result, a firm must put in extra effort to acquire higher earnings if interest rates are high; otherwise, the extra expenses on the additional interest will absorb a higher proportion of the profit. The lower the profit, therefore, the lower the cash flow and hence, the larger the required rate of return for people which invariably affects the company’s stock price. Furthermore, in a situation where interest rates increase to a level that a company might find it hard to honor its financial obligations, the survival of the company would certainly be threatened and for that matter, higher risk premiums would be demanded by investors. This will cause the company’s stock price to decrease further (Stowe et al., 2007). Moreover, the inverse relationship between stock prices and interest rates is explained from the viewpoint that a rise in interest rates raises the interest expenditures of highly geared firms and companies. This reduces cash flows that can be distributed as dividends to shareholders in the future period. Changes in interest rates ultimately influence the extent to which financial assets and liabilities of non-financial firms are estimated on the market. In other words, a higher rate of interest affects the opportunity cost of investing in shares, which makes bonds more attractive. Hence, investors are motivated to substitute share investments with bonds and consequently, causing stock prices to fall (Mwaanga, 2017). Furthermore, the negative association between interest rates and stock prices is explained from the perspective either through the rate of discount or the effect of inflation. According to Choi and Jen (1991), the expected returns on stocks are sturdily linked to the interest rate risk, as well as the market risk. Their findings indicated that the risk of the interest rate for smaller businesses is one of the main sources of portfolio risk for investors; the risk of the interest rate for bigger companies is negative or inverse. Also, the findings indicate that the risk premium of interest rate explains a significant proportion of the difference in projected earnings between the topmost five and the bottom five companies of the New York Stock Exchange. The above notwithstanding, the results of Humpe and Macmillan (2007) also revealed that Japan and United States stock prices are equally related to interest rates indirectly in the long run. Irrespective of the fact that 1 Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2021 (ISSN 2221-1152) several academicians, policymakers and financial economists have attempted to establish the dynamic
Recommended publications
  • I Should Say, at the Outset of This Function on the Senate Side Of

    I Should Say, at the Outset of This Function on the Senate Side Of

    I should say, at the outset of this function on the Senate side of Parliament House, that my subject today—former Tasmanian premier and Australian prime minister Joseph Lyons—was not all that enamoured with upper houses for much of his political career. As a Labor premier of Tasmania, he stood up to the Tasmanian Legislative Council in the 1920s over its financial powers. On a couple of occasions he even managed to by- pass the Council entirely. (How many prime ministers would like to be able to do that these days?) As well, during Lyons’ first two years as a federal minister in the Scullin Government, he faced strong opposition from the Nationalist Party dominated Senate. But then Joseph Lyons moved to stand with the conservatives in 1931. Thereafter, upper houses became more to his liking. Of course—that’s a long time ago and upper houses today cannot be relied upon so easily to reflect the conservative side of politics. As we know well … I am here to discuss one of Australia’s longest serving and most popular prime ministers. And, yet, it has taken some seventy years to get to a point of acknowledging this in the national record. As I discovered on researching his biography, Lyons has been shoved off to some remote region of forgetfulness— thought of as a prime minister who achieved little and was merely used by stronger forces to win elections. This legacy has stalked the memory of J. A. Lyons—as he was wont to sign on documents. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
  • Balance of Power Senate Projections, Spring 2018

    Balance of Power Senate Projections, Spring 2018

    Balance of power Senate projections, Spring 2018 The Australia Institute conducts a quarterly poll of Senate voting intention. Our analysis shows that major parties should expect the crossbench to remain large and diverse for the foreseeable future. Senate projections series, no. 2 Bill Browne November 2018 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. Donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor.
  • Prime Ministers of Australia

    Prime Ministers of Australia

    Prime Ministers of Australia No. Prime Minister Term of office Party 1. Edmund Barton 1.1.1901 – 24.9.1903 Protectionist Party 2. Alfred Deakin (1st time) 24.9.1903 – 27.4.1904 Protectionist Party 3. John Christian Watson 27.4.1904 – 18.8.1904 Australian Labor Party 4. George Houstoun Reid 18.8.1904 – 5.7.1905 Free Trade Party - Alfred Deakin (2nd time) 5.7.1905 – 13.11.1908 Protectionist Party 5. Andrew Fisher (1st time) 13.11.1908 – 2.6.1909 Australian Labor Party - Alfred Deakin (3rd time) 2.6.1909 – 29.4.1910 Commonwealth Liberal Party - Andrew Fisher (2nd time) 29.4.1910 – 24.6.1913 Australian Labor Party 6. Joseph Cook 24.6.1913 – 17.9.1914 Commonwealth Liberal Party - Andrew Fisher (3rd time) 17.9.1914 – 27.10.1915 Australian Labor Party 7. William Morris Hughes 27.10.1915 – 9.2.1923 Australian Labor Party (to 1916); National Labor Party (1916-17); Nationalist Party (1917-23) 8. Stanley Melbourne Bruce 9.2.1923 – 22.10.1929 Nationalist Party 9. James Henry Scullin 22.10.1929 – 6.1.1932 Australian Labor Party 10. Joseph Aloysius Lyons 6.1.1932 – 7.4.1939 United Australia Party 11. Earle Christmas Grafton Page 7.4.1939 – 26.4.1939 Country Party 12. Robert Gordon Menzies 26.4.1939 – 29.8.1941 United Australia Party (1st time) 13. Arthur William Fadden 29.8.1941 – 7.10.1941 Country Party 14. John Joseph Ambrose Curtin 7.10.1941 – 5.7.1945 Australian Labor Party 15. Francis Michael Forde 6.7.1945 – 13.7.1945 Australian Labor Party 16.
  • Independents in Australian Parliaments

    Independents in Australian Parliaments

    The Age of Independence? Independents in Australian Parliaments Mark Rodrigues and Scott Brenton* Abstract Over the past 30 years, independent candidates have improved their share of the vote in Australian elections. The number of independents elected to sit in Australian parliaments is still small, but it is growing. In 2004 Brian Costar and Jennifer Curtin examined the rise of independents and noted that independents ‘hold an allure for an increasing number of electors disenchanted with the ageing party system’ (p. 8). This paper provides an overview of the current representation of independents in Australia’s parliaments taking into account the most recent election results. The second part of the paper examines trends and makes observations concerning the influence of former party affiliations to the success of independents, the representa- tion of independents in rural and regional areas, and the extent to which independ- ents, rather than minor parties, are threats to the major parities. There have been 14 Australian elections at the federal, state and territory level since Costar and Curtain observed the allure of independents. But do independents still hold such an allure? Introduction The year 2009 marks the centenary of the two-party system of parliamentary democracy in Australia. It was in May 1909 that the Protectionist and Anti-Socialist parties joined forces to create the Commonwealth Liberal Party and form a united opposition against the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government at the federal level.1 Most states had seen the creation of Liberal and Labor parties by 1910. Following the 1910 federal election the number of parties represented in the House * Dr Mark Rodrigues (Senior Researcher) and Dr Scott Brenton (2009 Australian Parliamentary Fellow), Politics and Public Administration Section, Australian Parliamentary Library.
  • The Leader of the Opposition

    The Leader of the Opposition

    The Leader of the Opposition ‘…just as there can be no good or stable government without a sound majority, so there will be a dictatorial government unless there is the constant criticism of an intelligent, active, and critical opposition.’ –Sir Robert Menzies, 1948 The practice in Australia is for the leader of the party or coalition that can secure a majority in the House of Representatives to be appointed as Prime Minister. The leader of the largest party or Hon. Dr. H.V. Evatt coalition outside the government serves as Leader of the Opposition. Leader of the Opposition 1951 - 1960 The Leader of the Opposition is his or her party’s candidate for Prime National Library of Australia Minister at a general election. Each party has its own internal rules for the election of a party leader. Since 1967, the Leader of the Opposition has appointed a Shadow Ministry which offers policy alternatives and criticism on various portfolios. The Leader of the Opposition is, by convention, always a member of the House of Representatives and sits opposite the Prime Minister in the chamber. The Senate leader of the opposition party is referred to as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, even if they lead a majority of Senators. He or she usually has a senior Shadow Ministry role. Australia has an adversarial parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition face off against one another during debates in the House of Representatives. The Opposition’s role is to hold the government accountable to the people and to Parliament, as well as to provide alternative policies in a range of areas.
  • William Morris HUGHES, PC, CH, KC Prime Minister 27 October 1915 to 9 February 1923

    William Morris HUGHES, PC, CH, KC Prime Minister 27 October 1915 to 9 February 1923

    7 William Morris HUGHES, PC, CH, KC Prime Minister 27 October 1915 to 9 February 1923 Billy Hughes became the 7th prime minister after Andrew Fisher, leader of the Labor government, resigned from office due to ill health. Member of the Labour Electoral League 1891, Australian Socialist League 1892, Australian Labor Party 1901-16, Nationalist Party 1917-29, Australia Party 1930-31, United Australia Party 1931- 45, Liberal Party of Australia 1945-52. Member of the House of Representatives for West Sydney 1901-17, Bendigo 1917-22, North Sydney 1922-49, and Bradfield 1949-52. Minister for External Affairs 1904; Attorney-General 1908-09, 1910-1913, 1914-21; Health and Repatriation 1934-37; External Affairs and Vice-President of Executive Council 1937-39; Attorney-General 1939- 41; Minister for the Navy 1940-41, Minister for Industry 1939-41. Previously, Member of New South Wales Legislative Assembly for Lang 1894-1901. Hughes resigned as prime minister and was replaced by Stanley Bruce when the Country Party under Earle Page refused to serve in a coalition ministry with him. Main achievements (1915-1944) A founder of the Labor Electoral League 1891, Australian Socialist League 1892, Nationalist Party 1917, Australia Party 1930, and United Australia Party 1931. Established Advisory Council for Science and Industry (forerunner to CSIRO) and Commonwealth Shipping Line 1916. Commonwealth Police Force 1917. Member of Imperial War Cabinet and Australia’s representative at Versailles Peace Conference. Ensured Australia’s interests represented during and immediately after First World War. Australia’s delegate to League of Nations 1932. Personal life Born 25 September 1862 in London.
  • Todd Farrell Thesis

    Todd Farrell Thesis

    The Australian Greens: Realignment Revisited in Australia Todd Farrell Submitted in fulfilment for the requirements of the Doctorate of Philosophy Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Health, Arts and Design School of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities 2020 ii I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree in any university or another educational institution and to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. iii ABSTRACT Scholars have traditionally characterised Australian politics as a stable two-party system that features high levels of partisan identity, robust democratic features and strong electoral institutions (Aitkin 1982; McAllister 2011). However, this characterisation masks substantial recent changes within the Australian party system. Growing dissatisfaction with major parties and shifting political values have altered the partisan contest, especially in the proportionally- represented Senate. This thesis re-examines partisan realignment as an explanation for party system change in Australia. It draws on realignment theory to argue that the emergence and sustained success of the Greens represents a fundamental shift in the Australian party system. Drawing from Australian and international studies on realignment and party system reform, the thesis combines an historical institutionalist analysis of the Australian party system with multiple empirical measurements of Greens partisan and voter support. The historical institutionalist approach demonstrates how the combination of subnational voting mechanisms, distinctly postmaterialist social issues, federal electoral strategy and a weakened Labor party have driven a realignment on the centre-left of Australian politics substantial enough to transform the Senate party system.
  • Class and Gender Determinants of New South Wales Electoral Behaviour 1930–321

    Class and Gender Determinants of New South Wales Electoral Behaviour 1930–321

    Re-gendering Labour 141 Re-gendering labour: Class and gender determinants of New South Wales electoral behaviour 1930–321 Geoffrey Robinson School of Historical Studies Monash University Historians have neglected the impact of female enfranchisement on Australian electoral outcomes. This papers employs multivariate analysis to explore electoral behaviour in New South Wales during the Great Depression. It argues that women were less prone to sup- port Labor than men, but that women in paid employment consti- tuted a partial exception to this pattern. In 1932 the conservative parties significantly eroded Labor’s working-class support. Part of this success was due to the ability of employers to coerce workers with the threat of dismissal. Female wage earners were particularly vulnerable to this coercion. Conservative electoral appeals recast masculinity in terms of family responsibility rather than class asser- tion. Conflict in the household economy possibly influenced women to vote against Labor due to its identification with the cause of male breadwinners. Overall female voting behaviour was more stable than that of men and this despite the high profile of issues that would have been expected particularly to influence female voters. INTRODUCTION After 1908, white men and women had equal electoral status in Australia. Historians have given little attention to the electoral impact of female enfran- chisement. The analysis of “women and politics” has been interpreted to mean either a review of female parliamentary representation, or more recently the feminist impact on public policy (Lake 1999). However only a small mi- nority of women voters were members of feminist organisations. In their un- representative character, feminist organisations were not unique, only a small minority of manual workers were Labor Party members and many were not even trade union members.
  • 17. the Minor Parties

    17. the Minor Parties

    17 THE MINOR PARTIES Glenn Kefford The 2019 federal election is noteworthy for many reasons. One of the defining stories should be that the ALP and the Liberal–National Coalition have been unable to draw voters back from the minor parties and Independents. Put simply, the long-term trend is away from the major parties. In this election, there was a small nationwide increase in the vote for minor parties and Independents in the House of Representatives, while in the Senate there was a modest decline. The State-level results are more varied. The Coalition lost ground in some places and maintained its vote in others. The ALP vote, in contrast, was demolished in Tasmania and in Queensland. Almost one in three Queenslanders and Tasmanians decided to support a party or candidate in the House other than the ALP or the Coalition. Across the entire country, this was around one in four (see Figure 17.1). In the Senate, Queensland and Tasmania again had the largest non–major party vote. These results are dissected in greater detail in other chapters in this volume, but they suggest that supply-side opportunities remain for parties and candidates expressing anti–major party sentiments. Put simply, the political environment remains fertile for minor party insurgents. 343 MORRISON'S MIRACLE 40 35 35.55 33.65 32.2 30 26.2 25 25 25.09 23.8 23.47 21.1 20.4 20 19.9 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.2 18.3 18.4 17.7 17.1 15.7 15.1 15 14.6 14.3 14 14.5 13.2 13.5 12 12.2 10.7 10.7 10.8 10 10 8.8 8.6 7.7 8.1 7.3 7 7.4 5 4.7 5 3.9 4.4 4.1 2.1 0 1949 1951 1955 1958 1961 1974 1975 1977 1980 1983 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 House S ena te Figure 17.1 First‑preference votes for minor parties and Independents Source: Compiled with data kindly provided by Antony Green and from Australian Electoral Commission (2016 and 2019) .
  • Bibliography

    Bibliography

    Bibliography Abbey, B. (1987) ‘Power, Politics and Business’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 22 (2), 46–54. Ackerman, B. (2000) ‘The New Separation of Powers’, Harvard Law Review, 113 (3), 633–729. ADB (2008) Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition, at http://www.adb.online.anu. edu.au/adbonline.htm, accessed 29 July 2008. Adcock, R., M. Bevir and S. Stimson (eds) (2006a) Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton: Princeton University Press). ——— (2006b) ‘A History of Political Science. How? What? Why?’, in R. Adcock, M. Bevir and S. Stimson (eds), Modern Political Science, 1–17. Adelman, H., A. Borowski, M. Burstein and L. Foster (eds) (1994) Immigration and Refugee Policy: Australia and Canada Compared, 2 vols (Carlton: Melbourne University Press). Adeney, D. (1986) ‘Machiavelli and Political Morals’, in David Muschamp (ed.), Political Thinkers (South Melbourne: Macmillan), 51–65. Adorno, T. W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford (1950) The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Row). Ahluwalia, P. (2001b) ‘When Does a Settler Become a Native? Citizenship and Identity in a Settler Society’, Pretexts, 10 (1), 63–73. Aimer, P. (1974) Politics, Power and Persuasion: The Liberals in Victoria (Sydney: James Bennett). Aitkin, D. (1969) The Colonel: A Political Biography of Sir Michael Bruxner (Canberra: Australian National University Press). ——— (1972a) The Country Party in New South Wales: A Study of Organisation and Survival (Canberra: Australian National University Press). ——— (1972b) ‘Perceptions of Partisan Bias in the Australian Mass Media’, Politics, VII (2), 160–9. ——— (1977) Stability and Change in Australian Politics (Canberra: Australian National University Press).
  • An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right

    An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right

    THE OTHER RADICALISM: AN INQUIRY INTO CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN EXTREME RIGHT IDEOLOGY, POLITICS AND ORGANIZATION 1975-1995 JAMES SALEAM A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor Of Philosophy Department Of Government And Public Administration University of Sydney Australia December 1999 ABSTRACT This Thesis examines the ideology, politics and organization of the Australian Extreme Right 1975-1995. Its central interpretative theme is the response of the Extreme Right to the development of the Australian State from a conservative Imperial structure into an American ‘anti-communist’ client state, and ultimately into a liberal-internationalist machine which integrated Australia into a globalized capitalist order. The Extreme Right after 1975 differed from the various paramilitaries of the 1930’s and the conservative anti-communist auxiliary organizations of the 1945-75 period. Post 1975, it lost its preoccupation with fighting the Left, and progressively grew as a challenger to liberal-internationalism. The abandonment of ‘White Australia’ and consequent non-European immigration were the formative catalysts of a more diverse and complex Extreme Right. The Thesis uses a working definition of generic fascism as ‘palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism’, to measure the degree of ideological and political radicalization achieved by the Extreme Right. This family of political ideas, independent of the State and mobilized beyond the limits of the former-period auxiliary conservatives, expressed itself in an array of organizational forms. The complexity of the Extreme Right can be demonstrated by using four typologies: Radical Nationalism, Neo-Nazism, Populist-Monarchism and Radical-Populism, each with specific points to make about social clienteles, geographical distribution, particular ideological heritages, and varied strategies and tactics.
  • PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia

    PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia

    PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia Edited by Anika Gauja and Marian Sawer Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Party rules? : dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia / editors: Anika Gauja, Marian Sawer. ISBN: 9781760460761 (paperback) 9781760460778 (ebook) Subjects: Political parties--Australia. Political parties--Law and legislation--Australia. Political participation--Australia. Australia--Politics and government. Other Creators/Contributors: Gauja, Anika, editor. Sawer, Marian, 1946- editor. Dewey Number: 324.2994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xiii Contributors . xv 1 . Party rules: Promises and pitfalls . 1 Marian Sawer and Anika Gauja 2 . Resisting legal recognition and regulation: Australian parties as rational actors? . 37 Sarah John 3 . Party registration and political participation: Regulating small and ‘micro’ parties . .73 Norm Kelly 4 . Who gets what, when and how: The politics of resource allocation to parliamentary parties . 101 Yvonne Murphy 5 . Putting the cartel before the house? Public funding of parties in Queensland . 123 Graeme Orr 6 . More regulated, more level? Assessing the impact of spending and donation caps on Australian State elections .